This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
There's Tolkien tourism in places other than New Zealand. For example, you might also want to discuss Oxford and Sarehole Mill in Birmingham, both of which get significant numbers of fan visitors. MLilburne (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is little more than some bozo's opinion on Tolkien tourism. This article should be heavily edited-or removed. I don't see how 'Tolkien tourism' needs it's own article-, personally, I think it should just be mentioned on the Lotr film series' article.bob bobato (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this analysis - it certainly merits its own article, and can easily be dealt with in this form to make it comply with Wikipedia rules. Ingolfson (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]